Natun Melang Min Silpa Sambai Samity and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. (B)

¶1

Page No.# 1/15

¶2

GAHC010101652024

¶3

undefined

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WA/352/2024

¶6

1.NATUN MELANG MIN SILPA SAMBAI SAMITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ACHINTA DAS, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O- VILLAGE NATUN MELENG CHAPORI, P.S.- TEOK, SUBDIVISION JORHAT, DISTRICT- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785112.

¶7

2: NATUN MELANG MIN SILPA SAMBAI SAMITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RABIN DAS, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O- VILLAGE NATUN MELENG CHAPORI, P.S.- TEOK SUB-DIVISION JORHAT, DISTRICT- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785112 .

¶8

… ..Appellants

¶9

-VERSUS -

¶10

1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS (B) REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶11

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, JORHAT DISTRICT- JORHAT, PIN- 785001, ASSAM.

¶12

3:THE DISTRICT FISHERY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER JORHAT, GARMUR, DISTRICT- JORHAT ASSAM, PIN- 785001.

¶13

4:THE PRESIDENT/SECRETARY NAYANJYOTI SELF HELP GROUP NATUN MELENGGON P.O.- BORKHELIA DISTRICT- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785101.

¶14

5:KUMAR KAIBARTA GAON MEEN SILPA SAMABAI SAMITY LIMITED NIMATIGHAT JORHAT ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

Page No.# 2/15

¶16

SRI LALIT KUMAR DAS SON OF LATE BEPAI DAS, RESIDENT OF BHITOR KOKILA KOIBARTA GAON, NIMATIGHAT, JORHAT, ASSAM, 78511

¶17

… ..Respondents

¶18

Linked Case : WA/113/2024

¶19

NAYANJYOTI SELF HELP GROUP, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SMTI ARCHANA DAS W/O SRI SARAT DAS, NATUN MELENGGAON, P.O.- BORKHELIA DISTRICT- JORHAT, PIN- 785101.

¶20

… ..Appellant

¶21

-VERSUS -

¶22

1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPARTMENT DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶23

2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶24

3:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶25

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, JORHAT,ASSAM.

¶26

5:KUMAR KAIBARTA GAON MEEN SILPA SAMABAI SAMITY LTD NIMATIGHAT, JORHAT, ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI LALIT KUMAR DAS SON OF LATE BEPAI DAS, RESIDENT OF BHITOR KOKILA KOIBARTA GAON

¶27

NIMATIGHAT, DISTRICT- JORHAT, PIN- 785111, ASSAM.

¶28

6:NATUN MELENG MEEN SILPA SAMABAI SAMITY LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI ACHINTA DAS, NATUN MELENG CHAPORI GAON, P.O.- BORKHELIA, DISTRICT- JORHAT, PIN- 785101. … ..Respondents

¶29

Linked Case : WA/120/2024

¶30

KUMAR KAIBARTA GAON MEEN SILPA SAMABAI SAMITY LTD NIMATIGHAT, JORHAT, ASSAM,

¶31

Page No.# 3/15

¶32

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI LALIT KUMAR DAS AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS SON OF LATE BEPAI DAS RESIDENT OF BHITOR KOKILA KOIBARTA GAON NIMATIGHAT, DISTRICT- JORHAT, PIN- 785111, ASSAM. … ..Appellant

¶33

-VERSUS -

¶34

1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPARTMENT DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶35

2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶36

3:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FISHERY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶37

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, JORHAT,ASSAM.

¶38

5:NAYANJYOTI SELF HELP GROUP REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SMTI ARCHANA DAS NATUN MELENGGAON, P.O.- BORKHELIA DISTRICT- JORHAT, PIN- 785101.

¶39

6:NATUN MELENG MEEN SILPA SAMABAI SAMITY LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI ACHINTA DAS NATUN MELENG CHAPORI GAON, P.O.- BORKHELIA, DISTRICT- JORHAT, PIN- 785101.

¶40

… ..Respondents

¶41

– BEFORE – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶42

For the Appellant(s) : Ms. T. Som, Advocate in Writ Appeal No.352/2024.

¶43

: Mr. M.K. Choudhury, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S. Khound, Advocate in Writ Appeal No.113/2024.

¶44

: Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R.M. Deka,

¶45

Page No.# 4/15

¶46

Advocate in Writ Appeal No.120/2024.

¶47

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Sharma, Standing Counsel, Fishery Department.

¶48

: Ms. R.B. Bora, Junior Government Advocate, Assam. : Mr. M.K. Choudhury, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S. Khound, Advocate for respondent No.4 in Writ Appeal No.352/2024 and for respondent No.5 in Writ Appeal No.120/2024.

¶49

: Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Senior Advoate assisted by Mr. R.M. Deka, Advocate for respondent No.5 in Writ Appeal No.352/2024 and Writ Appeal No.113/2024.

¶50

: Ms. T. Som, Advocate for respondent No.6 in Writ Appeal No.113/2024 and Writ Appeal No.120/2024.

¶51

Date of Hearing : 04.03.2025.

¶52

Date of judgment : 11.03.2025.

¶53

J UDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

¶54

(Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)

¶55

Heard Ms. T. Som, learned counsel for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.352/2024, namely, Natun Melang Min Silpa Samabai Samity Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Natun Melang Samabai Samity”); Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Khound, learned counsel for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.113/2024, namely, Nayanjyoti Self Help Group (hereinafter referred as “Nayanjyoti SH Group”) and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R.M. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.120/2024, namely, Kumar Kaibarta Gaon Meen Silpa Samabai Samity Limited (hereinafter referred as “Kumar Samabai Samity”). Also heard Mr. P. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Fishery Department; Ms. R.B. Bora, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam; Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Khound, learned counsel for the respondent

¶56

Page No.# 5/15

¶57

No.4 in Writ Appeal No.352/2024 and for respondent No.5 in Writ Appeal No.120/2024; Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R.M. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 in Writ Appeal No.352/2024 and Writ Appeal No.113/2024 and Ms. T. Som, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 in Writ Appeal No.113/2024 and Writ Appeal No.120/2024.

¶58

2. These writ appeals are preferred on behalf of the appellants being aggrieved with the common judgment and order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.4064/2023 and 4002/2023.

¶59

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Deputy Commissioner/District Commissioner, Jorhat, [respondent No.4 in Writ Appeal No.113/2024 and WA No.120/2024 and respondent No.2 in Writ Appeal No.352/2024 (hereinafter referred as “Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat”)] issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 17.03.2023, inviting bids from interested persons for settlement of No.11 Kokila Part –(A) Fishery in Jorhat District. The last date for submission of bids was fixed on 18.04.2023.

¶60

4. In response to the above NIT, Nayanjyoti SH Group [appellant in Writ Appeal No.113/2024 which is respondent No.4 in Writ Appeal No.352/2024 and respondent No.5 in Writ Appeal No.120/2024] and Kumar Samabai Samity [appellant in Writ Appeal No.120/2024 which is the petitioner in WP(C) No.4002/2023 and respondent No.5 in WA No.352/2024 as well as WA No.113/2024] and Natun Melang Samabai Samity [appellant in WA No.352/2024 which is the petitioner in WP(C) No.4064/2023 and respondent No.6 in Writ Appeal No.113/2024 as well as Writ Appeal No.120/2024] submitted their respective bids. The bid amount offered by Nayanjyoti SH Group was Rs.6,51,101/-. However, the bid amounts offered by Natun Melang Samabai Samity and Kumar Samabai Samity were Rs.5,10,101/- and Rs.4,51,000/-,

¶61

Page No.# 6/15

¶62

respectively.

¶63

5. The Fishery in question was settled in favour of the appellant Nayanjyoti SH Group vide order dated 15.07.2023 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department. In the process of settlement, the bid submitted by Natun Melang Samabai Samity was rejected on the ground that it was a defaulter because the amount due from the said Samity had not been paid.

¶64

6. Being aggrieved with the settlement of the Fishery in favour of Nayanjyoti SH Group, appellant Kumar Samabai Samity preferred a writ petition, being WP(C) No.4002/2023, on the ground that Nayanjyoti SH Group, being a Self-Help group not consisting of 100% actual fishermen, is entitled to be declared as ineligible for settlement of the Fishery in question in its favour.

¶65

7. Later on, Natun Melang Samabai Samity also preferred a writ petition, being WP(C) No.4064/2023 challenging the said settlement of the Fishery in favour of the Nayanjyoti SH Group and also challenging the action of the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department of cancelling its bid while treating it as defaulter.

¶66

8. During the course of hearing of the writ petitions, it appeared that the counsel appearing for Kumar Samabai Samity also raised objection that the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat illegally allowed Natun Melang Samabai Samity to operate the Fishery in question on daily basis pursuant to stay order passed in WP(C) No.4002/2023 and WP(C) No.4064/2023, whereby the respondents were restrained to settle the Fishery in question in favour of Nayanjyoti SH Group in terms of settlement order dated 15.07.2023.

¶67

It was also contended on behalf the Kumar Samabai Samity before the

¶68

Page No.# 7/15

¶69

learned Single Judge that since Natun Melang Samabai Samity was a defaulter, the Fishery could not have been settled in its favour on day to day basis.

¶70

9. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the counsel for the parties, has concluded that the two certificates dated 04.04.2023 and 06.03.2024, issued by the District Fishery Development Officer, Jorhat in favour of the Nayanjyoti SH Group only indicate that the members of Nayanjyoti SH Group are the wives and relatives of fishermen but it is not certified that the members of the Nayanjyoti SH Group, who are 100% women, are actual fisherwomen.

¶71

10. The learned Single Judge has opined that the members of the Nayanjyoti SH Group may be wives and relatives of the persons involved in fishing but they cannot be termed as actual fishermen/fisherwomen and therefore, the settlement of the Fishery in question in their favour cannot be sustained.

¶72

11. The relevant para of the impugned judgment, whereby the learned Single Judge has non-suited the appellant Nayanjyoti SH Group, is reproduced hereunder :

¶73

“ 18. The cases of all the parties herein is that in terms of Rule 12 of the 1953 Rules, 100% of the members of the self help group have to be fishermen/fisherwomen. However, a perusal of the two certificates issued in the year 2023-2024 does not indicate that the members of the NSHG, who are the wives of fishermen, are actually fisherwomen. They no doubt belong to the fishermen community, as reflected in the certificates. However, there is no categorical statement made in the certificates that they are actual fisherwomen, though they may be the wives and relatives of persons involved in the profession of fishing. Though the counsel for the NSHG has tried to impress upon the Court that the members of the NSHG are actual fisherwomen, as they belong to the fishermen community, this Court is not amenable to the said submission. If belonging to a fishermen community makes a person an actual fisherman, then there was no requirement for the certificates to separately certify/clarify that the husbands and other family members of the NSHG members were involved in fishing activities by profession and were dependent on fishing for livelihood. The certificate could have easily stated that the

¶74

Page No.# 8/15

¶75

members of the NSHG, their husbands and family members, all belong to the fishermen community. However, as stated earlier, there being no specific certification made in the two certificates dated 04.04.2023 and 06.03.2024, that the members of the NSHG were actual fisherwomen vis-a-vis the certification made against their husbands and other family members, this Court is of the view that the said certificates dated 04.04.2023 and 06.03.2024 do not prove that the members of the NSHG are 100% actual fisherwomen. In light of the findings of this Court that the members of the NSHG are not fisherwomen, the fishery could not have been settled with them vide the impugned order dated 15.07.2023, in violation of Rule 12 of the 1953 Rules. Consequently, the settlement of the fishery vide the impugned order dated 15.07.2023 issued by the Fishery Department in favour of the NSHG is hereby set aside.”

¶76

12. The learned Single Judge has further taken up the issue of allowing the Natun Melang Samabai Samity to operate the Fishery in question on daily basis during the operation of the stay orders passed by the Writ Court, whereby the respondent authorities were restrained from settling the Fishery in favour of the Nayanjyoti SH Group in terms of the settlement order dated 15.07.2023 and has opined that the District Commissioner, Jorhat had no competence to issue any order extending the period of settlement of the Fishery, on daily basis, in favour of Natun Melang Samabai Samity in terms of Rule 8(b) of the Assam Fishery Rules, 1953 (hereinafter referred as “Fishery Rules”).

¶77

The learned Single Judge has held that the order passed by the District Commissioner, Jorhat, dated 20.06.2023 allowing Natun Melang Samabai Samity to run the Fishery in question on daily basis is without jurisdiction and accordingly, has set aside the same.

¶78

13. While holding that, the learned Single Judge has directed the respondents to issue a fresh NIT for settlement of the Fishery in question within a period of 3(three) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and order.

¶79

Page No.# 9/15

¶80

14. Appellant Nayanjyoti SH Group has preferred Writ Appeal No.113/2024 being aggrieved with the finding of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the Fishery in question cannot be settled in favour of the appellant because the members of the appellant Self Help Group are not actual fishermen.

¶81

15. Appellant Kumar Samabai Samity has assailed the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge by filing Writ Appeal No.120/2024 on the ground that the learned Single Judge, while coming to the conclusion that Nayanjyoti SH Group is not eligible for settlement of the Fishery in question in its favour and also without adjudicating the issue of declaration of Natun Melang Samabai Samity as a defaulter, should not have ordered for issuing fresh tender for settlement of the Fishery in question but should have directed the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department to settle the Fishery in question in favour of the appellant Kumar Samabai Samity, being the only eligible bidder left pursuant to the NIT.

¶82

16. Appellant Natun Melang Samabai Samity has preferred Writ Appeal No.352/2024 challenging the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned Single Judge has illegally refused to adjudicate the issue whether the action of the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department of rejecting the bid of the appellant Samity on the ground of it being a defaulter is in accordance with law or not.

¶83

It is claimed that the learned Single Judge has illegally left the above question to be decided at the discretion of the authorities concerned who have taken a decision on the point involved.

¶84

17. We are of the view that the fate of the appeals, Writ Appeal No.352/2024 and Writ Appeal No.120/2024, preferred on behalf of the appellant

¶85

Page No.# 10/15

¶86

Natun Melang Samabai Samity and Kumar Samabai Samity, depends upon the decision which we are going to take in the case of Nayanjyoti SH Group (Writ Appeal No.113/2024) and therefore, first of all we examine the case of appellant in Writ Appeal No.113/2024, Nayanjyoti SH Group.

¶87

18. It is not in dispute that the members of appellant Nayanjyoti SH Group belong to Scheduled Caste (SC) Community and on that strength the Group had submitted its bid for settlement of Fishery in question relying on two certificates dated 04.04.2023 and 06.03.2024, issued by the District Fishery Development Officer, Jorhat. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the said certificates and has opined that the said two certificates do not indicate that the members of the Nayanjyoti SH Group are actually fishermen/fisherwomen but only indicate that they are wives of fishermen.

¶88

The learned Single Judge has further opined that no doubt the members of the Nayanjyoti SH Group belong to the fishermen community but in absence of any categorical statement made in the certificates that they are actual fisherwomen, it is difficult to conclude that they involve in fishing activities.

¶89

19. It is also to be noticed that after the pronouncement of the impugned judgment on 18.03.2024, Nayanjyoti SH Group has obtained a certificate dated 23.04.2024 from the District Fishery Development Officer, Jorhat certifying that the members of the said Group belong to the Scheduled Caste (SC) community and are 100% actual fishermen by profession and they are engaged in fishing activities for their livelihood. The said certificate dated 23.04.2024 is produced on record by way of an additional affidavit dated 26.04.2024 in Writ Appeal No.113/2024 as annexure 12, which reads as under:-

¶90

Page No.# 11/15

¶91

“ GOVT. OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE FISHERY DEV. OFFICER JORHAT

¶92

AFJ. 496/2023-24/0787 Date: 23/04/2024

¶93

To whom it may concern

¶94

This is to certify that the members of the Nayanjyoti Self Help Group of Jorhat District are belongs to the Schedule Caste Community. Nayanjyoti Self Help Group is registered under NRLM bearing registration No. 154468. All the members of the S.H.G. are 100% actual Fisherman by profession and they are engaged in Fishery activities for their livelihood.

¶95

Dist. Fishery Dev. Officer Jorhat”

¶96

20. It is not in dispute that the certificate dated 23.04.2024 is obtained by the Nayanjyoti SH Group after pronouncement of the impugned judgment and, strictly speaking, it cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. But from the above, it can be assumed that the issuing authority, i.e. District Fishery Development Officer, Jorhat who had issued the earlier certificates dated 04.04.2023 and 06.03.2024, has failed to certify that the members of the Nayanjyoti SH Group who actually involve in fishing activities and only mentioned that they are the wives of fishermen and are dependent on fishing for their livelihood, however, such omission has now been fulfilled by issuing a subsequent certificate dated 23.04.2024 and the said certificate dated 23.04.2024 only reiterates the subsisting fact.

¶97

21. Otherwise also if we take into consideration Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules, it provides that all registered fisheries shall be settled under tender system of sale in place of sale auction except those referred to in sub-rule 8(b) of the Fishery Rules. However, proviso to Rule 12 says that the Government shall settle

¶98

Page No.# 12/15

¶99

a 60% category fishery with special category of Co-operative societies, NonGovernment Organisations and Self Help Groups consisting of 100% actual fishermen in the neighbourhood of the fishery concerned by the Tender System.

¶100

22. We are of the opinion that the word “fishermen” used in proviso to Rule 12 of Fishery Rules though imports masculine gender but it also includes females in absence of anything repugnant in the subject or context in the Fishery Rules which we do not find. The word “fishermen” used in Rule 12 is a not a gender specific and is a non-gender word and includes both fishermen/ fisherwomen.

¶101

23. It is further to be noticed that in Explanation 1 to the proviso to Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules the word “special category” has been defined which means and includes the Co-operative Societies, Self-Help Groups, Non-Government Organisations comprising of 100% actual fishermen of the Schedule Caste community or Maimal community of the erstwhile Cachar district. The word “community” cannot be confined to a gender only. The word “community” has its significance which ordinarily means society or group of people with similar rights and interests.

¶102

In Chambers’ Dictionary, the term “community” is defined as follows :

¶103

“ Community …, n a body of people in the same locality; the public in general; people having common rights, etc; a body of persons leading a common life, or under socialistic or similar organization; a group of people who have common interests, characteristics or culture; a monastic body… …..”

¶104

Similarly, in the New International Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language, the term “community” is defined as follows :

¶105

“ Com-mu-ni-ty …… n. … 1. The people who reside in one locality and are subject to the same laws, have the same interests, etc. 2. A body politic 3. The public; society at large. 4. A group of plants or animals living in a common dwelling under common conditions; also, the region in which they live. 5. A sharing or participation. 6.

¶106

Page No.# 13/15

¶107

Identity or likeness: community of interest. 7. Common ownership, possession, or enjoyment of property ……”

¶108

In Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, the term “community” is defined as follows :

¶109

“ Com-mu-nity …1. … all the people who live in a particular area, country, etc. when talked about as a group, …… 2. …..a group of people who share the same religion, race, job, etc ……. 3…. the feeling of sharing things and belonging to a group in the place where you live …… 4. ….. A group of plants and animals growing or living in the same place or environment…..”.

¶110

In Black’s Law Dictionary, the term “community” is defined as follows :

¶111

“ community . … 1. A neighbourhood, vicinity, or locality. 2. A society or group of people with similar rights or interests. 3. Joint ownership, possession, or participation. 4. The husband and wife considered as a single entity in a communityproperty state……….”

¶112

24. The Full Bench of this Court in Arbindo Das Vs. State of Assam , reported in (1982) 1 GLR 280 has made a detailed analysis of proviso to Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules and has held as under:

¶113

“ 9. The successive amendments of the Rules noticed above, show the anxiety of the Government to give a better deal to the deserving persons, the Cooperative Society formed by actual fishermen and actual individual fishermen by settling more and more fisheries with them. The emphasis in these rules indicate that the Government is more concerned about providing work to the actual fishermen to improve their lot than deriving revenue for the exchequer.”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

“ 20. …………….

The purpose behind the incorporation of the proviso to Rule 12 seems to be to give opportunity to the deserving actual fishermen of the locality who may be eminently suitable for the settlement of the fishery but their economic conditions may be such that they may not be in a position to compete with the other tenderers in settlement of fisheries under tender system. This provisio is really very wholesome, pragmatic and meaningful which is meant to secure settlement

¶118

Page No.# 14/15

¶119

to the deserving actual fishermen of the neighbourhood of the fishery. This proviso, in a sense is an improvement on the old Rule 12. Now the State Government’s power is to a certain extent circumscribed, inasmuch as it can only exercise when the pre-requisites noted above are in existence but within that constricted sphere, its power is plenary. In our opinion, this is a piece of social legislation which is framed for the purpose of giving opportunity to the listed class of persons mentioned in the proviso to Rule 12, in the matter of their avocation”.

¶120

25. After taking note of the above referred observations, we are of the view that when the Full Bench of this Court termed proviso to Rule 12 of the Fishery Rules as a piece of social legislation enacted with the object to give equal opportunity to the listed class of persons, a narrow meaning to the word “fishermen” or “community”, while not including the women involved in fishing activities would frustrate the very purpose of the enactment.

¶121

Moreover, there is no material available on record to suggest that the members of the Nayanjyoti SH Group are not involved in fishing activities, or are involved in any other vocation other than fishing activities. Fishing activities are not confined only to catching fish from rivers or ponds as there are certain stages of the fishing activities other than actual fishing and any person involved in any such ancillary activities cannot be excluded from that community, i.e. fishermen community.

¶122

26. It is true that in a fishery settlement process, the highest bidder cannot always claim to have a right of settlement of the fishery in its favour on the ground that since it has offered highest bid, the fishery necessarily be settled in its favour though it may be lacking some qualification however, the respondent settling authorities, apart from determining the eligibility of the respective bidders in fair manner, is also required to ensure that the interest of the Government is adequately protected and Government revenue is not

¶123

Page No.# 15/15

¶124

compromised.

¶125

27. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has erred in non-suiting the members of Nayanjyoti SH Group and has illegally declared that the said Group is not entitled for settlement of the Fishery in question in its favour. Therefore, the impugned judgment dated 18.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.4064/2023 and 4002/2023 to that effect cannot be sustained and the same is set aside.

¶126

The other finding given by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 18.03.2024 regarding settlement of the Fishery in question on daily basis in favour of the Natun Melang Samabai Samity, in terms of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat, during the currency of the stay order, is in accordance with law and therefore, is not liable to be interfered with.

¶127

28. Upshot of above discussion is that Writ Appeal No.113/2024, preferred on behalf of the appellant Nayanjyoti SH Group is allowed. The other two writ appeals, Writ Appeal No.352/2024 and Writ Appeal No.120/2024, preferred on behalf of Natun Melang Samabai Samity and Kumar Samabai Samity, respectively, are dismissed. Consequently, the appellant Nayanjyoti SH Group shall be allowed to operate the Fishery in question in terms of the settlement order dated 15.07.2023.

¶128

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶129

Comparing Assistant

Natun Melang Min Silpa Sambai Samity and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors. (B)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Natun Melang Min Silpa Sambai Samity and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors. (B)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Lalmuansangi Vs Sh. C. Lalhrangluaia and 6 Ors.

Sh. Lalrawngbawla and 758 Ors. Vs Dr. Renu Sharma and 6 Ors.

The State of Mizoram Vs Lalramzauva

Nayanjyoti Self Help Group Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Nayanjyoti Self Help Group Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Natun Meleng Meen Silpa Samabai Samity Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.